exchange, it seems to me that it increases costs and puts the government in control of private health insurance companies. massachusetts is twice as expensive as any policy i can buy. -- in michigan with equal coverage. i do not see how the governmenti control or the health exchange actually lowers costs or make it maybe you could comment on that. ñiguest: you raise a number of different points, and i will try to touchñiçó on them. the issue of information is a very big one in health insurance right now, particularly in the private insurance market for those people who have to buy health insurance coverage on their own. there are a number of different options out there. there is also an enormous variety and a real lack of information. . also an enormous lack of information.

it is typical for companies not to provide documentation of that policy until someone is enrolled so people do not have full information of what they're getting. they do not have all lot of information -- a lot of information -- a lot of information about their cost sharing will be, services. people will get little information ahead of time in terms of what drugs are in the formularies, which doctors will participate, etc. to help it turns exchange could provide uniform information to make sure that someone is buying something that they understand. it does not mean that there will be fewer options available to people, especially because it will be costly for people to apply for health insurance coverage on their own. they often have to pay a fee just to go through the application process. so there would be changes in terms of the uniformity and

completeness of information. in terms of cost, individual health insurance is the most expensive way to buy coverage. it is the option of last resort. the administrative costs, as a share of what the benefits are that are paid out can be 30% to 40%, so this is an expensive way to buy coverage. so expanding the group, centralizing marketing, facilitating in moments of the individuals have an easier time getting in, could hold down those costs. also, the more information you give people and allow them to compare plans easily, the more incentive you are giving interest to be cost efficient. if you compare, that is what creates competition. host: trees port.

-- shreveport. lonnie on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. the so-called reduction in medicare -- is this information or misinformation? are they really going to reduce the amount of money in medicare to pay for this plan? also, the public option. how come they do not want to fight for that? it seems to me that it would be a good way to go.

if people are insuring -- purchasing insurance, they are responsible for reading the policy and numbing their coverage. it is just like taking out a loan. if you sign on the dotted line, you are responsible because it is a contract. i think republicans are just fear-mongering, trying to kill the bill simply because of the input of lobbyists. host: thank you for the call. guest: public comment on the medicare question. the pieces in the legislation that would reduce cost under medicare are comprised of a number of components that have been discussed by legislative advisory commissions in the past, such as the medicare

advisory council, which advises congress on issues of payment in medicare. issues have also been raised by the congressional budget office. these are pieces of the medicare puzzle that have been pretty frequently discussed in places where there are overpayments in the certain -- current system. regardless of reform, these have been savings which many experts feel should be put in place anyway. so what has been going on is this notion that we have this large expansion of health insurance coverage, there are costs associated with that. let us put in place could print -- good business practices for the medicare program and use those savings to directly finance health care reform. my expectation, in the current budget deficit environment, if we did not have reform, these components would be put in place

anyway for deficit reduction. here we are using it for financing health care reform. they are not things that will -- medicare beneficiaries will feel just as adversely affected. this has been one of the most controversial components of the legislation. with regard to what we believe would be the impact of having a public option -- a strong public option available in the health insurance exchange, is one that would basically catalog their competition. it would be there as a lower administrative costs and a somewhat lower payment rate-type of plan available. because of its presence, it would force other insurers to negotiate with providers in a more aggressive way. right now we have a lot of concentration in health insurance market, but we also

have a concentration in the hospital markets. this has created a situation where there is not a lot of incentive for in jurors to lower the rates -- insurers to lower the rate the our pain thethey are paying. host: next phone call. caller: i have a couple of questions. i am on medicare and medicaid. under the current bill, would i be required to purchase insurance? my second question is, what are people not looking harder into why the's health care system? even rush limbaugh has praised it as the best health-care system in the world. -- hawaii's health care system?

i understand it is a social system and he seems to praise it as the best in the world. i am sure he is angering the gop world. guest: those individuals that are dual eligible would feel little difference, if any, under the reforms. as far as individual mandates to have health insurance coverage, it would apply to those non- elderly individuals who are over the poverty threshold. in terms of medicare and medicaid coverage, that would certainly qualify as acceptable coverage. so the world should stay pretty much the same. hawaii is an interesting state. it is a state that does not have a government system, although

that is a misunderstanding. what they have is different from other states. they have some requirements by their employers to purchase health insurance for their workers. there are a lot of exemptions, so there are a lot of people who do not have employer-based insurance, but that is why they have somewhat more coverage compared to other states. however, they do not have an extensive system to provide financial support to the low- income population beyond medicaid. so they could use a lot of help, and would get a lot of assistance from this reform in terms of providing for their low income population. host: this is a question that house and senate negotiators are facing. a national market for insurance or one in every state? in the "new york times" --

what would that do? guest: i think that would create complexity. what we do not want is people be eligible for more than one exchange. what that does is create more administrative costs. it also sets up a situation where there could be competition between federal and state exchanges for the healthiest individuals which then creates a problem where we have to worry about whether or not people who have higher costs will be affordable. so it creates an extra layer of bureaucracy and complexity that i think would be an error. host: let me read from one

account of the event yesterday -- any comments from that? guest: i am not privy to the conversation, so it is hard to come in, but it is a good sign the president is involved. he is trying to bring the parties together in an efficient manner as possible.

host: another article in the "washington post" -- back to your phone calls as we talk about health insurance exchanges. tallahassee, clinton on the republican line. caller: i had some concerns about the nature of the debate. my concerns were two fold. it seems strange to put these burdens on the states. medical providers seemed to

dwindle and of course, more people will be in need. some people, unfortunately -- there is a stigma associated with medicaid. some people also know that if you have medicare, it is harder for primary care providers to find a provider for medicare. it would seem that had the specter of the stigma is growing taller, whether they are eligible due to circumstances, seemed to becoming second-class citizens, and this is slipping away from the debate. i could go on for quite some time about this, but i wonder if anyone will address these issues

of the dwindling pool of primary care providers and the stigma that some of these existing plants are getting, not to mention the stigma of the public plan. where are these providers going to come from with the ever- increasing cost? i will be happy to take my comments off the air. guest: with regard to state medicaid and cost, all those would be made newly eligible for the program through the reform. they would be enrolled in the states, but states would receive very high matching rates. so the government would be internalizing the vast majority of the cost associated with

of the cost associated with those newly-eligible that really provides a great deal of support for the state on that. with regard to stigma, that has been an issue to some extent in the health insurance programs, such as medicaid, less so with medicare. " we are able to discern is that the more individuals are made eligible for medicaid and other programs like it, the less the stigma is there. for example, the participation in the program based on population in massachusetts has been very high. once the culture of the community changes, in terms of the notion that there is an expectation that people will have health insurance coverage and that there is some community responsibility involvement in that happening, that stigma it eases.

more outreach and stet -- more a creature and facilitation makes it easy for people to get enrolled and that will -- more outreach and facilitation makes it easy for people to get enrolled and that eases the stigma. the legislation does include some additional funds in the medicaid program. whether or not that survives a compromise from the senate, we do not know. whether that will exist in the senate, we do not know. i think it will occur for some of the reasons you are loading to, and with regard to the differentials between payments to physicians between medicaid and under medicare, because medicaid generally pays quite a bit less than medicare to providers, i think that would be one that continues over time and it will become closer to

medicare levels. host: assuming a deal is reached between negotiators and legislation returns to the floor, it is a question of how it gets to a vote. cnn news is asking white house spokesman robert gibbs about posting health-care bill 72 hours before the vote.

any comments on process? guest: the process is very complicated and that is not my specialty. it is a situation that is unfortunate that we have such a patchwork incurred -- in terms of our current health care system. lots of different pieces that work differently for different populations, that if you are trying to improve the situation for many people and at the same time preserving the peace is that people like, which is what they're trying to do here, then it creates a very complicated legislation. we have these very large bills that are difficult to get host:ñi mississippi, democrats line. caller:çó good morning, i've ben listening to c-span -- i watched the whole health care debate from gavel-to-gavel. i was very hopeful by what the outcome was. then i watched my spirits think

as i watched what happened to it in the senate. right away that sounded exactly to me like that massachusetts bill, which i had heard about a long time ago -- which i knew was mitt romney cosy dea's deal. it came to mind what gore vidal said, he said, you have two conservative parties in this country and one is just as conservative than the other one. the thing about with the romney plan is that, like any state that has auto insurance -- or you require auto insurance in iowa, we just had that happen to was about three or four years ago. the auto insurance premiums went up 30%. it was exactly the opposite of what they claimed would happen.

i like the way this woman talks about all this health care and everything because she seems so thorough. and she has mentioned the massachusetts plan a couple of times. what i do not get is, once you have an external -- an insurance exchange, but it is still a mandate -- you are still going to have the mandate. the insurance companies in the exchange, would inspire them to lower their costs? i do not get it at all. it still seems like a two party system, but one less conservative. it is like we are spoon feeding customers to the insurance companies. guest: i will try to respond to the issues of your concern, about cost containment and what the incentives are. the situation with the exchanges -- actually, let's take a step back and talk about today for a

moment. right now, there is not a lot of incentive for cost containment in the private health insurance system. nor in the provider systems. the way things are structured nowñi, there is a lack of availability for customers to bargain with providers of their fees and pass the savings on to the consumers. the idea for the exchange is not one to have the government set rates, which is what made you are alluding to with a more government-oriented system. cost containment is a bit more straightforward where the government would set the rate and provide -- and decide what the providers would be paid and cool down the rate of spending that way. what is going on here is trying to create an environment that is less politically controversial than that kind of approach where you set up a marketplace that would function better than the

markets where -- that we have now, where the incentives are not for the insurers to save money by avoiding those who have high medical needs, the sick, and trying to attract the healthiest groups and individuals, but instead, were this risk is spread very broadly for these populations. but to do that you have to have these requirements of coverage so that individuals who are healthy cannot opt out of the system and not sharing the costs associated with people who are sick. as we all know, everybody ages and everyone has episodes of bad health. to have everybody in, whether sick or healthy, means that everyone is protected later on down the road whether they are sick or healthy. these pieces -- bringing a structured marketplace together and then putting information in place, putting rules in place to encourage the health insurers to

compete at providing cost efficient care instead of avoiding high cost individuals. that is the idea. host: mike allen in his political rupp this morning looks atñr the media and says ia front-page "los angelesñr times" story -- the idea discussed wednesday in a meeting at the white house could placate those who bitterly opposed -- bitterly oppose president obama's high tax insurance coverage that would affect many union members. what has your experience been in massachusetts with your exchange? caller: i'm a diabeticçó and i'm

on social security. i fortunately get my health insurance through my wife. i noticed with our insurance here, our rates keep going up. i went to see my kidney specialist is today and i asked him what his opinion was on the health care bill coming up and he told me about -- if he had about two hours, he could tell me. apparently, he is not in favor of that. up here, -- ok, we did on after keiko pay on our tests. like i said, my wife is still working, and she has had lesions on her brain. those tests are usually covered, and now all of a sudden, it is a $50 per pay period -- $50 copay.

i've got to tell you that up here in massachusetts, we pay quite a bit. if you do not have a number from the insurance company when you file your income tax, you get penalized. i feel bad for people who need insurance at all, and then are penalized on their taxes. guest: the issue of cost continuing to increase in massachusetts is one -- as i mentioned before -- it is a problem we have across the country. we need to think long and carefully about what the best strategies are for containing costs and slowing the rate of growth. we've got some strategies in these pieces of legislation, but i think we will need more, and

part of that will have to be based on research and analysis that is in progress and will follow what is being put in place by these bills to see what is the most effective in that. it is very difficult politically to do cost containment in a very effective way because cost containment means taking money out of somebody's pocket, very much so out of hospitals, physicians, and potentially the insurers. what we have is a lot of political force working against cost containment, but then a lot of real perception and understanding of the need for it in terms of helping the system move forward and keeping coverage affordable. one of the things that would be included in the legislation here for those that would be eligible for coverage through the exchanges, in addition to subsidies to help people by

premiums and make sure that the coverage is affordable in that respect, there would also be some out of pocket financial and stick --óú financial assistance for the low-income population. it would have limits on how much of pockets -- out of pocket could be applied to individuals when they get sick. there would be some assistance in this legislation for that. host: camden, republican line. caller: from all indications and everything i've heard, this government takeover is still only going to cover 95% to 96% of people. but we will still have many that are not going to be covered. and the insurance that is going to be offered is going to have such huge deductibles and co- payments that people are going

drop to think twice about going to the hospital and doctor and they are still going to declare bankruptcy because -- when they cannot pay them. and if you pay a penalty or a tax because you choose not to buy insurance, when you go to the emergency room or if you have a catastrophic illness, it is still not going to be covered. the situation will remain the same. and you talk about administrative costs, when you enter the government into the administrative costs, we're talking billions of dollars. the president said he would reduce costs. let's throw out this health care bill and get something worked out before it is crammed down our throat. how are they going to reduce cost? that is what we need to know. the insurance companies only have a 3% profit margin. the media has the biggest profit margin, as well as the fed and

wall street. these things need to be written in stone before weekends -- so that we can see them before this is crammed down our throat. our going to keep people from going bankrupt because of huge deductibles and co pay? what are you going to do with the panelists asians for people through taxes and people are still going to get sick? guest: there are a lot of issues that you raised there. i will try to touch on what i can. in terms of there not been complete coverage in these health care bills, that is correct. correct. a significant part of the remaining uninsured population who are here from other countries and do not have legal status to be here, that was a significant political issue. i think members of congress felt

very strongly that there was not public support for providing financial assistance to individuals who were not here legally. as a consequence, there is a population that will remain uninsured and it will be significant issue as it is today for particular states where there is a high immigrant population, such as new york, florida, texas, california. that will be an ongoing issue for the financial systems of those states. care for the population will be necessary. those who do not pick up coverage voluntarily will be eligible for coverage through the medicaid program. if they become ill or injured and they go to a hospital, they can get enrolled at that point. but there will be others who will remain outside. as far as the out of pocket costs, there are relatively high deductible plans that will be offered within the health insurance exchange and would be

the minimum amount of coverage that everybody would be required to have. that would not stop people from getting more comprehensive coverage like many do today. that would be provided in exchange for those who are low- income and are eligible for financial assistance. they would get not only payments assistance, but also would be required to pay lower out-of- pocket costs. but also required to payçó lower out-of-pocket costs. they would have cost sharing subsidies as well. there is a good deal of assistance, but insurance -- in terms of making sure everyone has very low pocket liability across the board, while that is a very nice idea and a lot of people supported, it also costs more in government dollars. -- a lot of people support it, it also costs more in government dollars. ñrand they're trying to moderate

ñibetween those concerns. host: springfield, missouri, you are a last question on this topic. caller: on insurance exchanges, my opinion is that a national change would be much more cost- effective and efficient and other than state plans. with respect to automobile insurance, the state has -- the state assigned risk pools have been quite effective. çóa few comments on things thate hear -- if i could buy insurance across state lines -- every insurance company rights in the states that they choose. but they choose a produced eight, that is where they do

business -- if they choose a particular state, that is where they do business. with respect to this current health care plan -- i know it has been destroyed as it has gone through congress -- i personally think it is a mistake to enact the current plan. there is nothing in there to control costs. the only thing that will control costs is competition and there is no competition. the cost of current health care is created by people and it is also created by providers. an example on providers, i've wanted to change my primary position -- i wanted to change my primary physician to another location, and the only medication ayman is 5 milligrams

of alpace a day. a couple of days later i got a call from the nurse and they said he wanted to see me in a month. i said, why? and they said, well, you take blood pressure medication and he wants to check your blood pressure. it turns out that if i did on a creek -- unless i agreed to go to his office once a month to have my bloodñi pressure taken, which there was no where was going to do, he would not accept me as evasion. host: -- accept me as a patient. host: that is obviously an example of cost containment. guest: they have some of us -- some liability if they are not monitoring you properly while you are on medication. i cannot compliment -- comment on the appropriateness of that.

the position may feel that is a corporate care. in terms of the state vs. -- the physician may feel that is appropriate care. in terms of the state vs. medical exchanges, the first is one of uniformity in terms of access to coverage that is comparable across the state. we do have some concerns that the more variation you allow, the more flexibility that states have, you may end up with people -- very similar people in two somdifferent states have ben very different access in terms of coverage of is available to them. the second concern is one of federal dollars. this reform is largely spending federal dollars. not state dollars. and so, when you have the federal government not administering the health insurance exchanges, not doing the oversight of how the markets are working and how the money is

being spent on insurance plans as director, then you have a situation where somebody who is doing oversight is not really the one hand the on money and there is a bit of disconnect in terms of incentives for the states and being aggressive in containing costs and making sure the federal dollars are being used efficiently. host: that is it for our time. thank you >> tomorrow morning, we will talk with a great from the economist magazine, greg burns on the council of domestic affairs will discuss haiti, and we will look at cia operations in afghanistan and pakistan.

>> wants his bentonite, interior secretary can salazar speaks at a town hall meeting -- on c-span tonight, interior secretary ken salazar speaks at a town hall meeting. >> this weekend, to neil joseph on the 1965 voting rights act and how it paved the way for african american leadership.

next we come what is your chance to talk to the authors of "game change." that is live on tuesday morning. >> interior secretary cansos are spoke with a gathering of department employees today -- interior secretary ken salazar spoke with a gathering of department employees today. >> ñihaving had the privilege of coming here with the secretary on day one of last year, i can

tell you that i am amazed at what the secretary has accomplished in a short 12 months. he has an incredible work ethic and a passion for all of the issues that matter to all of us. i remember on that very first day, he told us that he would work for more proactive and balanced stewardship to protect our national parks and open spaces, restore our nation's rivers, resolve our water supply challenges, and address the challenges faced by our native american communities. is he a true to his word or what? [applause]

he also told us that our department would be leading the way in changing america's. we're doing just that. it is an inspiration to walk in here every day and work with all of you on the issues that are so important to all americans. it is an inspiration and honor every day to work for secretary salazar and serve the president. thank you mr. secretary for the opportunity to be here with you. [applause] >> thank you, laura. we have had a great 2009 and we are fired up and ready to go for 2010. i am fired up. are you? [applause] come on. [applause] our work truly has just begun.

i want to say at the outset that it would not have battled been possible to do the great things we did in 2009 -- it would not have been at all possible to do the greatñi things we did in 209 without the people in the department of the interior. i said i would not run for the governorship of colorado because i wanted to be with you. [cheers and applause] this department, as the custodian of america's natural resources, as the custodian of america's history, really does so much for the 300 million americans that was really proud to be at the helm. i want to thank everybody that was here and who is watching us around the country. before i begin, i want to briefly recognize everyone in the department.

forethoughts under pressure with the people of haiti today. we will do what we can to support the administration's rescue efforts as that country struggles with the natural catastrophe that just hit it. today, looking out at all of you, i want you to know that i am very proud to serve as your secretary. at this moment in history, with this president and with the agenda we have created together, i would rather be the secretary of the interior than doing anything else professionally in the world. almost one year ago, nearly two million americans gathered together here in the national

mall in washington d.c.. do you remember that day? it was cold and there were tremendous crowds. it was time to witness the swearing-in of the new president, barack obama. he believes said we believe now in our ability as a people to rise to the test that we confront, to change what must be changed, and to work together as a people to form a more perfect union. the belief that we can leave their world better than we found it is why we are all called to public service. it is why we're all here in the interior. i know this because i have traveled many miles over the last year and met many of you across this country. in albuquerque and the apostle islands, and buildings in bismarck, and pelican island and

palm springs -- although i have not met everyone of you in the department in person, i do hear from you. i know you hear from me. i know you get my e-mails. and i appreciate those of you who respond to my e-mails. everyday i hear incredible stories of interiors public servants to go above and beyond to help deliver change. they are employees like kim drive-in a service biologist too, for 13 years, has poured herself and her heart to the historic picayune project in southwest florida in the everglades. her hard work has paid off. tom strickland joined sam hamilton to break ground on the 55,000 acre restoration project , a corner shorn of our efforts

to restore the river of grass, the everglades, here in america. so let's hear it for camera and let tearful all. -- so let's hear it for kim and let's hear it for all. [applause] that round of applause goes to all of the scientist in the department of the interior. thank you for recognizing her. we have had many stars in the interior, including all of you who have been working with chris henderson and the directors and the rest of their employees in the implementation of the recovery act. that is a major responsibility. we need to make sure that it is implemented in the right way, based on the directives that we have from president obama and our responsibilities to make sure that we're taking care of the $3 billion that were brought to this department through the recovery act. the people who worked on this

effort are many in the department. there people like faye winters in florida. she is the project manager of four recovery projects. like many around the department, she assumed her recovery act responsibilities on top of doing everything else she is doing. she knows people are counting on her to get projects under way so that people can get to work and bring home a paycheck. she knows she is working on projects that will have a long- term sustainability effect on the blm area that she works. they have done a great job and her work made for an extraordinary 150th anniversary for juniper and left like house last week. let's hear it for her and everybody working on the recovery act. [applause]

we also have many other people who work toro clean throughout this department all-time -- who worke tirelessly throughout this department all the time. they were all on the spot. duane and mike worked on the on site area at the jamestown dannon. there were there for 40 days -- at the jamestown dam. they were there for 40 district without rest. -- they weren't there for 40 days without rest. -- they were there for 40 days without rest.

[applause] and when the those horrific fires hit california last year and it seemed that all of california was ablaze, people like stew can in were there. she and her team -- people like sued canosue cannon were there. she and her team more on the ground. thank you for doing your work and being proud of the work that you do. thank you for delivering for the american people. give them another round of applause. [applause] we do work from sea to shining sea and all over this planet. there are places like american samoa where we are making a difference.

we're helping with the tsunami recovery efforts. in haiti, the sciences continue to supply critical data from that critical earthquake. and they are all my heroes. they are servants of the people. they are servants of the american people and i am very proud of them. let's hope and pray that they'll stay safe. there are all doing what they have to do here. thank you very much. we all appreciate them buttstock a little bit about the interior in 2009 -- we all appreciate them. let's talk a little bit about the interior in 2009. 2009 was a great year. the recession has been a difficult recession for this country. it has a deep and personal effects on the people of this

country, including many people who were kier at the interior. -- who worked here at the interior. some families have shrunk from two incomes to one. college tuition, house payments, and things like that are looking difficult. we must tend to the needs of family first. i hope that your career at the interior is a source of strength and security for your family. it is at times when our nation his tested that we feel the greatest surge to help others. it is in these moments when air service feels most rewarding president obama -- when our service feels most rewarding.

president obama is counting on us and the american people is counting on each of us to give their best. we each have a role to play in the american recovery and in the american renewal with a terrific leadership and the terrific team we have in place, we're steering their nation out of the storm that we have been in. we are moving as one, the department of the interior, as one family in a new direction. i published a report this summarizes our first year. it is being circulated and will be sent to all of you by e-mail. it does not include every milestone or every achievement over the last year. but it hits on highlights for our department. i see the department as the custodian of our natural resources and the custodian of america's history. that report can be found on

line or as you go out. we have focused on six areas in the last year. first is to protect the places that americans' love. second, building a clean energy economy and tackling the effects of climate change. third, working to do right by indian nations and island to meetings. fourth, working with young people in the outdoors so that they can fall in love with the outdoors. fifth, finding solutions to water challenges that vex our country from many places around the country and finally, how we change -- changing how we do business at the interior. we are making progressçó in each of these areas. soon after being sworn in,

president obama signed sweeping conservation legislation, protecting america's great outdoors. we would like to pause and recognize that, in that act, it was one of the first major bills signed by president oba into law. but the stroke of a pan at the white house in front of the national conservation leadership, they created two million acres of wilderness, added more than 1,000 miles to the national wild and scenic river system, and authorized three national parks, four new national conservation areas, one new national monument, and created the management system that covers 5 million acres. that legislation was a terrific start for president obama and

for the conservation legacy which we want to build here at interior and for this country. to build on that legislation, we have taken the $3 billion that came to us through the recovery act and we have invested it into america's landscapes. we have also reopened the crown of the statue of liberty. we broke ground on flight 93 as a memorial to those heroes who were on that flight. we have made great strides in restoring the everglades and moving forward with new momentum on the restriction -- on the restoration of the chesapeake and great lakes. i am glad that we have restored the role of science in decision making. the consultations are back in the way that they should have been. so, too, are the brown pelican which is back in the kind of numbers it should be and we have declared it to be recovered.

the polar bear as a proposed critical habitat now which it did not have before. that is 200,000 square miles of critical habitat in alaska. we have laid out a plan to restore the health of wild source herds and of their ranges. we built the department of interior said first quarter and strategy for confronting the impacts of climate change on america's resources, banks [unintelligible] we have also begun to rewrite the mountaintop mining rules to better protect the appellation streams. we have been days as a full partner with the state of california to tackle the drought and the enormously complex water crisis that they are experiencing. on the colorado river, we have established a new protocol for water flows into the grand canyon and through that national park. there is a lot that we have done. but we must do more and we will

do more in 2010. i am also proud that, in 2009, we made progress in our efforts to honor the federal government's commitment and responsibility to the indian nations. in november, the president of the united states was here in this place hosting a white house travel nations with more than 400 leaders of the federal derecognized tribes in america appear i. we're working with law enforcement in indian country. with the department of education to improve the 83 schools that serve the 44,000 children over which we have responsibility to provide an education. after 13 long years of litigation strangling this department, we have reached a settlement in litigation and nobody thought we could do it. [applause]

on the energy front, we have been hard at work to change how we do business and build a comprehensive energy plan for the country. in the last year, we have offered new areas for oil and gas development, but we have instituted reforms to ensure that we're offering leases in the right places and in the right way. importantly, we have opened a new energy frontier on america's lands and oceans that will help power are clean energy economy into the future. for the first time ever, a responsibly -- an environmentally responsible program is in place. we have mapped out over 1000 square miles of land in the

southwest for solar energy development. we are fast tracking solar and wind projects that can get up and running quickly. we expect that more than 5,300 megawatts of new capacity could be ready for construction by the end of 2010. that is enough power for almost 1.6 million homes. that project construction will create almost 50,000 jobs. let me pause for a minute and just put a punctuation point on what we are attempting to do there. the department of the interior, taking the lead role, will have permitted facilities that will have the capacity of generating an excess of 5,000 megawatts of power. a typical coal-fired plant would

produce 350 megawatts of power. and therefore, 5,000 megawatts would be the equivalent of more than 15 coal-fired power plants. i am proud to say that it is the department of the interior, the bureau of land management, and the fish and wildlife service who are the point of the spirit in bringing about this renewable energy revolution to america. we should be proud of what the men and women of this department are doing. give them a round of applause. [applause] some people have to see things before they can believe them. some people say that, when we try to capture the power of the sun or the power of the wind or the power of the earth through geothermal energy, that it cannot be done, that people have been talking about this forever

, through the 1970's when president nixon who announced and pronounced the words energy independence for the first time, when president carter stood in front of the nation and said that we would move forward to energy independence with a moral equivalent of war, yet nothing has happened. what we're doing here under the leadership of president obama and the incentives that have been put into place is we will make believers out of the skeptics. .

>> we have accomplished many things in one year. more work is underway. to get it all done, we have restored budgets that have been in sharp decline since 2001. thanks to pam haze in the many people in their offices and your office is to do the work for this department on our budget year after year, it is a very difficult and a very long process. just as the budget takes a great deal of time to develop, we must recognize that each milestone we reached in the last year is a culmination of months and often years of work at all levels in this department. we have reason to be proud of each and every milestone. but our work in the first year of the obama administration is more than just the sum of the

parts. it is about a new approach. it is about a practical approach. it is about solving problems for the american people. on interiors issues, there is rarely an easy issue. there is almost never one answer. that is the way in which it has worked, and that is the reality we confront every day. that is why we must always be open to new ideas. we must adapt our thinking. we must engage the public, and we must petty and learn and apply the best science at in. the spirit of pragmatism is on all levels of this department. the work of the first year reflects a new way of doing business. in a larger sense, it reflects a set of values that americans want us to uphold, but which have too often been forgotten in recent times.

as custodians of our nation's natural, cultural, and historic resources, you and i have a duty to protect the places that americans live and to help all americans connect with their history in their heritage. well while icons like yosemite and others are cared for, many others are quickly disappearing. every year -- when you look back americans are losing 3 million acres of land. an area the size of connecticut, as our nation's lands are transformed redevelopment. as the places we love disappear, so do the connections that we have to the land. they are the places that we americans knew as children, the

places we hunt, the places we hike and bike, the places we picnic as families, the places we unplug and unwind. today, half as many kids get out side as they did 10 years ago. 60% of americans do not get the recommended amount of exercise. one-third of adults are not physically active at all. our job at interior is not merely to wisely managed the public's resources, to ensure that solar wind, oil, and gas development happen at the right places and at the right time on our public lands, but our job is also to help americans reconnect with the places they know and that fuel our spirit. that is why we are engaging in expanding youth throughout the

department and why we need to reach out to audiences who have never visited their public lands. to connect people with their lands, we must also tied the american landscape back together. we can no longer imagine a national park as insulated or isolated from the lands around it. we cannot imagine a national wildlife refuge in the same way. the reality of it is, we need to think about the ecological systems. we need to recognize that climate change and habitat fragmentation and development require us to break old habits and thing beyond our usual boundaries. that is why we must seek new partnerships with private landowners, state and local governments and tribes as we build a landscaped scale approach to conservation. we must inspire, we must encourage, and we must seek the support of the citizens of america as we move forward in

creating our 21st century conservation agenda. and we must listen. we must remember this because in the end, stewardship can be deeply personal. it is not just about the beauty of the world around us, but about our relationship with the world around us. it is about the places that you and i know, the places we live, and experiences that connect us to a sense of place. each of you has those places. i have those places. for me, theñi place i love the most is my family's ranch in the san luis valley. is in amounts over to the east of the valley, and the mound where the sun sets every night in the mountains to the west,

and the river that flows through our ranches. those are the places that i love. the birds and wildlife that go through that ranch and around that ranch, those are the places that i love. we each have those places, and we all care deeply about them. all americans do. our challenge is to inspire people to rediscover the lands they love and engage them in their stewardship and protection. americans, i believe, are eager to respond. americans want more parks and more open spaces. they want more time together with their families. they want more chances to connect with one another. ralph waldo emerson once said " hinojosa regina hill knows what virtues are in the ground, the waters, the plants, the

heavens, and how to come at these enchantments is the rich and royal man." the american renewal is about jobs and return to economic growth. it is also about how we refuel are american spirit. it is about remembering the values that we share and reconnecting with the places and stories that set america apart. i am excited about the year ahead. i know interior is well suited to lead our country in these times. with your work, with the leadership of president obama and the passion of the people of this department for what we do, we can change the world together. thank you very much. [applause]

i am told i have time for questions, so i will be happy to take questions. there are some microphones out in the audience. if you have a question, please do not hesitate. >> thank you for the opportunity to address you. my name is arthur nelson. i am with the office of law enforcement and safety. i have been here seven years. i would like for you to answer with a little background. next month is black history month. your recent comments about harry reid and that situation, i applaud you for that.

what specifically have you done to further promote diversity in this climate, andxd what you pln tr do over the next year to further that process? >> it is a very important and appropriate question. the president and i very much share the view that we need to have a government that is reflective of the face of america. within this department, if you look at the diversity of the 100 or so people i have hired in the political leadership team, you will find that diversity there. if you look at what the departments are doing, we are including diversity as a performance factor to make sure we move to having a permit that

is reflective of the face of america. let me say two other things about the importance of that. if we keep up with the demographic changes we see in america, that means we are reaching out and including all people. bob is going out and trying to recruit people from varying backgrounds and letting in the note that the door is open and the opportunity is there. we think about the youth programs we started in this department. the fact of the matter is, over the next seven years, 40% of our work force will change. it is a great opportunity for us to recruit and make sure we have an inclusive work force, and that will be a high priority of mine. for me, this is an issue that is

personal. i recognize where our history as a nation has gotten, and i recognize that in moving towards a more perfect union, at different times there were many places for improvement. this morning as i was coming in, i made an unscheduled stop at one of the great places we are moving forward with, the tell america's story, at the martin luther king memorial where i signed the permit after many long delays were construction is under way and people are building a memorial to recognize martin luther king here on the national mall. i spent time with dr. king's older sister, not only here in

washington but in at lana where we visited the bird -- in atlanta where we visited the birth home of dr. king. we have often had conversations about how it is important that we tell all of america's story. for sure it is important that we make sure we are taking care of thathe natural wonders that we have and how we move forward with a 21st century conservation agenda. as important as that agenda is, it is equally important an agenda to make sure that we as the custodians of history tell all of america's story. that includes the stories of the japanese internment camps, or

the story of our newest national park in california, which essentially tells the story of discrimination against african american soldiers in world war ii. that is very much a part of the responsibility of this department. so i would say to you and to all people who are listening to this statement from the, when i speak about diversity, i speak about diversity in its completeness. that means no one gets left behind. not white males and not african- american females, not first american's, nobody gets left behind. [applause]

c'mon, is 2010. it is time for you to give me questions and comments. i do this in town halls. if you don't start asking questions, i will start picking on you. >> i think at the federal level, we forget about the small groups and individuals. i was wondering what your opinion was on how we can best use our stakeholder groups to spread the department's message and really get all of those individuals involved and understand what we are doing. i feel sometimes like people do not know what interior is. i just wonder what you thought

we could do to best use those external groups. >> i do think that there are not very many people understand what is that we do here at the department of the interior. when i was going through my senate confirmation, many people only thought we were the department of the west, because that is where we have a huge presence through the bureau of land management and the bureau of reclamation. they also recognize that we have 550 wildlife refuges and the states with the most art north dakota and florida. we have climate change responsibility where we monitor the carbon content through the u.s. geological survey. we have relationships with great world heritage areas on both borders of the united states and all around this world. it is important that we as a

family in this department to tell the story of this department to all of america, and i do that as much as i can. we have two things that think will be very helpful for us to do that. the first is through the efforts of our communications team to connect up with people about the things we are doing here in this department. for example, the fact that i am "ti u$is department, wen ability to communicate today that we did not have five or 10 years ago. we are going to maximize those newñr tools that we have availae to us. secondly, in the months ahead, we will engage in a series of town hall meetings on a

conversation -- conservation agenda around the country. that willñi take us throughout e united states. as we do that, we'll have more opportunities to educate the american people about what it is we do at this department. a great friend of mine is senator daniel in a waouye. his story is a remarkable story that i have heard with tears in my eyes. he and a group of 01 americans of japanese descent -- a group of all white and americans of japanese descent decided -- a decided --hawaiian americans were told that they could not

join because they were japanese. ñrhe went on to form what becama battalion, and that battalion was finally recognized by president roosevelt in an executive order that allowed them to defend the united states of america. in being a member of that battalion, he received a medal of honor. even today, it is the unit of the american military that has received more medals of honor than any other single unit. it started out with several thousand people and by the end of the war there were only a few hundred people still alive. in his visits over here to the department over the last year, his mind is very sharp. as an elder statesman of

america, when he reflects on the department, he says is the best department in america. he says we are the custodians of the natural resources and the history of this country. when you hear it coming from someone like him who has watched this department over many years, it means a lot to me, and should mean a lot to you. it is the kind of story we will tell around the country so people understand the importance of the department. in my first week here as secretary, tom strickland suggested i should go to the statue of liberty. i went, and i wanted to send a strong message to the american people that we really work the department for america and not just for the west. i want the person who is in the bare -- in the very back row,

the tallest person in the very back row, right in the middle, to stand up. you are going to have a comment or question after i take this one. [laughter] >> since we are here to celebrate our achievements over the last year,çó i wanted to tì+ you for how you made my you are better. this memorial day we led about 30 people on a camping trip in southwest idaho, including families whose children otherwise would never get to go camping. we went there because of your efforts on behalf of idaho in dedicating over half a million acres of wilderness. we found a secret canyon with no

tracks and hummingbirds, and had a wonderful time. i just want to say thank you for enriching my life this year. thank you very much. [applause] >> i will be in idaho sometime in the next several months. >> it is an honor to serve you, and a question i would have for you is, looking out on 2010, what do you most hope to achieve, and how can we help you to get there? ñi>> we have some enormous challenges, but we will not know

what the president's budget will look like for the department. there are some tough times ahead, but we have been spending up the department from the years of erosion it has suffered in the last decade. we will move ahead with a budget that i know will be reflective of the priorities which we have established and hope to be able to move forward with a continued effort on new energy and climate change, moving forward with the creation of landscape conservation copper chips in 18 regions around the country. we hope to launch what will be the creation of a conservation dialogue and march for conservation around the country. the specifics of that will

unfold over the next several months. we hope to significantly expand our outreach effort to young people and to have a huge additional number of young people who will be working with us here in this department in 2010. ñrin every specific area of the department, there are many other things we have to do, and our responsibilities mean there is a whole other agenda we have to work on very hard. sometimes the possibility of being the victim of crime and an indian reservation is six times higher than for anybody else in america. one in three women will be raped on an indian reservation

at some point in their life. so we have a huge law enforcement challenge we are working on very closely with my colleague, eric holder, and others to address some of these issues. we have economic development issues, and we have to move forward with what hopefully will be a revolution with respect to education for the 44,000 young people who we educate in indian education schools. lots of different pieces for 2010. there is a document that will outline most of what we are planning to do in 2010. we will be sharing it with the very soon. -- sharing it with you very soon. >> one of the things that will be happening in 2010, and people

will know about relatively soon , we are having an accessibility summit meeting in april. it is basically updating what we did back in the year 2000, which was a terrible time to have it. it was the end of the clinton era, and are some that was the april before. now we are very encouraged that you are visiting this. we will measure what we have done since the year 2000, and now that all the political as are in place, we are in a good place and time to actually move forward. the issues we will deal with, you have mentioned employment -- i have not heard anything about accessible facilities, accessible i.t., and one of our big new areas is emergency

preparedness. we will be rolling this out, and i would like for the whole department to know that this is a group that really wants to have a bigger profile, because we are only 0.8% of the population in the department of the interior, which is way too small. i would like to know if you have any thoughts about increasing accessibility at the department. >> i would very much look forward to meeting with you and those of you who have been working on the effort and on the report and hearing your ideas. we will be more than happy to listen to what it is that we can do. there are many things going on, even how we were portraying ourselves in this building.

many of you have been waiting for the cafeteria. we will have a new cafeteria open on may 1. [applause] we want our building to be secure and we wanted to be more welcoming, so there are things we are doing to try to change some of those things. the auditorium you are in today has been completely rehabilitated just as last year. those historic seats your sitting in our new ones. we have made some investments. as part of us looking at those issues, let me make sure that accessibility is also part of that agenda. that we take one more question. -- let me take one more question, all the way in the back. >> a quick question, i am with the office of law enforcement and security. one of your priorities is

protection of native american communities. my personal view of president obama being so technically oriented, or technologically oriented, do you have a vision of how the office of law enforcement and security can apply information technology to provide support to your priority? >> with respect to law enforcement and our effort to native american communities, the system secretary has people working with our tax force -- task force and has developed a number of initiatives that range from training in law enforcement academies to having specific goals and the reduction of crime in reservations. those efforts will be implemented in the days ahead. i am not sure i understood your technology question.

the fact is that the president is very technologically oriented. i know how to email view. -- how to email you. technology is a fact of our existence today, and we use technology in a major way in the department. we have 01 $0.30 budget -- $1.3 million budget. it was not managed very well in the past. we did not keep up with the technological advantages that occurred in the last few years. we are making that happen and moving forward into the 21st century technology platform here for the department of the interior. let me just wind up by

concluding in this way and saying to all of you that i thank you all very much for your work. someone asked me the other day about this department and whether or not i would rather be the secretary of transportation or the attorney general. i said no, if you look at the world that i get to work on, is a wonderful world. it is the world that takes meat from acadia national park in maine to the great yellowstone to the grand canyon, to our wildlife refuges and to our reservations. when you think about the department, it really is a wonderful icon of the american people, and i am very, very proud to be your secretary of interior. i look forward to working with all of you in the year ahead. thank you very much. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> coming up, and health care town hall meeting was held by at oregon senator on wyden. then, lisa jackson, epa administrator. later, state of the state addresses from the governors of illinois and washington. some events we are covering tomorrow on c-span2, the washington center for internships hosts a discussion of new media and politics at 9:00 a.m. eastern. speakers include marvin kalb, ed henry, and others.

according to the brookings institution, nearly three- fourths of the population in the gaza strip is under 29 years old. at 1:00 p.m. eastern, live coverage of a forum on the future for young palestinians living in the gaza strip, including comments from the former world bank president and democratic rep keith ellison. >> middle and high school students, just a few days left to'enter a s student cam contest. the grand prize is $5,000. all the winning videos will be shown on c-span, so do not delay coming into today. upload your project by midnight wednesday. >> oregon senator braun wyden hosted a town hall meeting last weekend to discuss proposed

health-care legislation. he co-sponsored an amendment that would allow workers to opt out of their employer sponsored plan and buy coverage from health insurance exchanges. this is about an hour and 45 minutes. can you hear me in the back of the room? great. i would like to welcome everyone to this middle school. this is for our town hall for senator wyden. before move on, i would like you all to stand for the singing of our national anthem by a student at a local high school. ♪ o say can you see by the dawn's early light what do proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming? whose broad stripes and bright

stars through the perilous fight o'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming? and the rockets red glare the bombs bursting in air gave proof through the night that our flag was still there o, say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave? o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave

♪ [applause] >> let's give kim a big round of applause. again, let me welcome you to the town hall meeting. i would also like to welcome some special guests, representative sarah gelser, the sheriff, the district attorney, mayer tomlinson, a district court judge john holcomb, and a number of other people in the audience. i know once i start listing everyone, i know i will forget someone. so i will stop right there. i also want to mention there will be another opportunity for you to ask questions. senator merkely will be in

corvallis on friday the 15th, 11:00 a.m. at the fair grounds. commissioner j. dixon will go over the format for asking questions. jay, what do come for? >> i will do from here. you should have received a ticket. then we would ask the questions in that order. if he did not receive a ticket, we will come by and make sure you have one. keep your questions as concise as possible. we would like to have the senator to have the opportunity to speak about as many issues as possible. if someone before you has asked the same question that you have, there is no need to repeat it. one of these questions is

probably sufficient. so, i am going to call the first two numbers. when i call your number, raise your hand. the first number is 784. >> this is to get ready. and then it will introduce the senator. >> and then 775. >> thank you. i would like to introduce senator ron wyden. he serves on the energy and national resources committee, finance, budget and select committee on intelligence and the special committee on aging. i want to thank you for everything you do for us in washington, d.c. i know there are a lot of issues out there ahead of you and there is much work to do. i especially want to thank you for your work you put in the did the work you put in it to set up a healthy forest issue for east side forest.

so we can make sure we do not let our forests burn up. [applause] do we need to wire you? >> i'm fine. thank you so much for that gracious and inflationary introduction. we are going to go with questions with commissioner dickson in a minute. how many of you have never been to one of our town hall meetings? raise your hands. before i go to questions, i usually start with a couple of comments, an hour or so's worth. he thinks some serious. the gentlemen in the third row, his face got all pale. that is not what we are going to do at all. this is part of the pledge that

i made to organ back in 1995. -- to oregon. i said if i was chosen as the first new united states senator in 30 years, we would have an open community meeting in every county every year that i served in the senate. so that is what we have done. we have met more than 500 times. for the next 90 minutes, we will practice pure, unfiltered democracy. commissioner dickson is just going to go into them all and hauled out a name. -- call out a name. you will give me your assessment of various issues. i will try to give you my response back. but we will do it democracy the way the founding fathers wanted us to do it. that is what is going to happen. we have a couple of formalities i have to take care of on my end.

already, you will see in the course of the next 90 minutes that folks have differences of opinion on the host of issues we all know that health care reform is a very non controversial topic. i am sure we will see that again today. we will have plenty of differences. but one area where there is an organ consensus is we support it are veterans all the way. would they please stand to be recognized? oregon's veterans. i cannot hear you folks. [applause] thank you for recognizing our veterans. also, our forestry efforts. we have been able to get a little bit of a truce on the east side, 8 million acres. the environmental folks and the timber industry coming together. it could not have happened without an oregon state

professor. could norm johnson and his wife debbie please stand. where are they? a round of applause for and norm johnson and wife debbie. thank you, both. and because of his great work, we are going to take that east side agreement over to the west side so that are round or again we can get saw logs to mills. we can have biomass of clean energy and protect -- protect our old growth. we thank you. even if you disagree strenuously with your neighbor, do not reach over and some of them in the mouth. bad for the building. there are probably a lot of law enforcement people around. add a lot of the meetings, everyone has been asking about the twins, h two. speaking objectively, they are gorgeous.

pictures of l. on my iphone after the meeting. those are all the formalities. 90 minutes of democracy, folks. that is what's next. >> number 784. >> i have never been to a town hall meeting, and i have a lot of questions. i do not know how many questions i can ask. >> one at a time. >> just one. ok. on the issue of the health care bill right now, it is a very costly and it is not going to be effective implemented in a few years. why do we have to pay taxes right away if it passes? and it is also a non starter if we do not have tort reform or medical malpractice there is no point in doing health care reform bill.

>> he said your name was fran? first of all, i personally believe that it is a mistake to not have legal reform as part of a bipartisan effort to fix american health care. now, to set a little bit of a backdrop for this health issue, many oregonians know that i saw to go a different route. i was part of an effort with 15 u.s. senators. ñrwe wrote a bipartisan bill. the budget office said that for the amount of money we're spending today, all americans could get good, quality, affordable coverage with choices like members of congress have. i have always wantedxd health reform that involves 1/6 of the economy to be dealt with in a bipartisan way. ñii think the democrats are rigt on the coverage issue. you cannot fix the system and less all americans get good

quality, affordable coverage. you do not get everybody covered, people who are uninsured shift their bills to the injured people. i also think republicans have a valid points, partly with respect to choice and competition in markets. so, what i did in my bill is we melded those two theories together. it is real change. you can read at my website, if you are having trouble sleeping at night. it is not that long. you will be able to read it and go to sleep comfortably. i am going to continue to work for those kinds of principles, to get as many of those principles into the legislation as i can. for choice, for markets, competition, to holding down costs. i share your view that a number of the costs are prevented.

-- front-ended. the question becomes, if you do not get what you want, you have two choices. you can go off and the corner and complain. or you can go out and try to get some of these key ideas, which are bipartisan, into the bill. so for example, if you look at section 1108 of the senate bill, you will see that part of god are protestant philosophy is right there. -- part of our bipartisan philosophy is right there. it establishes what are called free choice vouchers so that people would have more choices and more opportunities. you spend more than 8% of your income on health, but you cannot get a subsidy, you can get one of these vouchers. it makes sense. right now there are negotiations between democrats and republicans. my priority for those negotiations is something that by the national federation of independent business.

top priority for meat, to try to make sure that we can have more options, more alternatives for holding down costs. so i am going to keep talking to republicans every step of the way. i support the legal reforms you are talking about. but i think to not make a start on this would be a mistake. you cannot get rid of the vicious practice of discriminating against people for pre-existing conditions. that is what happens today. this bill is going to make it illegal. i wish this had been bipartisan. that would have been my first choice. but to every part of this, i am going to do everything i can it keep talking to republicans, keep trying to find ways to produce common ground. >> by a been asked to remind you to turn off your cell phones or put them on vibrate. next person to ask the question is 775. >> hi.

i am here because i am very interested in health care situation. i am very much in favor of a public health option because i do not see any way for the insurance companies to have any incentive to keep their costs down and was there is a government auction. i am curious as to how, what your thoughts are about that, how you will support it or not and why. >> the question is about the i voted for it twice in the senate finance committee, the strongest version. and it has been my view, going back to the point -- i think fran on the other side of the room made with respect to how we will hold costs down, you have got to have the widest array of choices, private and public available on day one if you are going to hold the insuranceñi companies accountab. folks, in much of the country, health care is now the competition-free zone. we have scores of communities

where one company basically has cut everybody under their boot heel. there is essentially no competition. i have wanted a full array of private choices and public choices available to the consumer on day one. one of the reasons i support those free choice and vouchers is that that is an opportunity for middle-class people to push back on the insurance companies right away. to be able to fire their insurance companies if they do not like their care, to give their insurance company an ultimatum. you treat me right or i will take my business somewhere else. i hope this will get into the conference discussions or negotiations. i believe, folks, it is time to change the mccarren-ferguson act so you lived this protection that the insurance lobby has from the antitrust laws. there are only two industries in america that have protection

from antitrust laws. you talk about holding costs down and have a more choice and competition -- changing mccarren-ferguson so the insurance companies are not protected by the antitrust laws ought to be a priority. >> number 883 and 870. who has 883? >> my name is chris ashley and i am really concerned about the financial status of our government. looking at health care, i have to think about the condition of social security and of medicare, both teetering the tremendous federal deficit that seems to be getting bigger and bigger and wondering, how in the world we are going to pay for this. >> you raise an extremely important point.

a bit of history, and then my sense of what is next. at the beginning of 2009, it was the general judgment of economists, conservatives, moderates, liberals, economists all across the political spectrum that there was a real prospect our country could have had a depression and a real prospect of deflation. it said there was an argument then for stimulus legislation. you can debate whether it should have included this or that or something else, but there was a consensus that some stimulus was needed. now, certainly, many months later, we wake up and our government owns a car company, an insurance company, an investment house, and people are saying, excuse me? what is next? given all of these deficits and all of these costs? and i do believe that it is

time for the government to put in place something of an exit strategy so that, in some of these areas where government has not been before, we get back the proper balance between the private sector and government. and i am thinking about that with respect to the big issues coming up, particularly, on the financial reform issue which we will have real implications for your question. folks, i was one of a little over 20 members of the u.s. senate who voted against the entire bank bailout legislation. [applause] it was, as you know, on measure that cost just under $800 billion dollars. a republican president wanted it and a democratic president wanted it. and i, in effect, said no to both.

and the reason i did goes to the heart of your question. what troubled me so much about that legislation is it seemed that we started to move towards of dr. and in this country, an economic doctrine, that if you are big and powerful and you have lobbyists and clout, you are too big to fail. and if you've got problems, you have taken on too much risk, you do not really have to sweat it because your government is going to bail you out. and the flip side of too big to fail, of course, is too small to succeed. -- which is if you live in benton county and you have a small business and to have got problems, the government is not going to bail you out. government is not even spending

and of time to come up with pro- growth tax policies and sensible regulation. now we have a big financial reform bill coming up. you have been reading about it in the news that. and i am concerned that steps be taken in this financial reform bill to make sure that these financial institutions no longer have the same incentives to take on risk because they know that the taxpayer will be there to bail them out. so, you bet. the issue you are talking about is extremely important. -- with respect to several of the other measures, one of the reasons to have health reform is because the fastest growing costs are medical. whether it is my national federation of independent business amendment or vouchers or other kinds of ideas, i am

going to be looking for every way to promote choice and competition, create a health care marketplace, because of respect to soaring costs, that is the way you're going to drive them dam. >> the next number is 870/ following will be 764. >> i am concerned about health care and the finances. before the bill is passed, there ought to be restraints in it to keep the costs from rising. medicare has lots of fraud in it. what you doing to eliminate the fraud when you pass this bill? >> the question was about medicare and the legislation contains a number of anti-fraud provisions. clearly ought to try to make though it is as strong as possible in these discussions

that are taking place right now. let's put the medicare issue in proper context it is particularly relevant for us and organ. -- in oregon. to me, the central problem is it rewards inefficiency. it pays on the basis of volume or rather than quality. and so, we in oregon had been discriminated against for holding costs down. it is relevant in benton county. we have a lot of seniors on medicare advantage. for quite some time, medicare services in benton county and throughout the valley, it is anó hard for the doctors to get adequate reimbursement in order to be able to see seniors. our reimbursement, if you compare it to other parts of

the country because of the system that pays on the basis of volume rather than quality, many areas are -- our reimbursement is half what it would be in high-cost areas. so, in the legislation, the senate bill, i was able to get a measure included to get changes in net. under the measure i included, good, quality plans and medicare advantage plans that hold costs down would be eligible for extra reimbursement. in case somebody wonders is this a special deal for oregon, this will help oregon, but it will also help the entire country because of instead of rewarding medicare providers for being inefficient, it will reward them for holding costs down. boosting the effort against fraud is absolutely key, as the question suggests.

the single most important medicare reform that could be put in place is a new reimbursement system that no longer rewards inefficiency, no longer rewards of volume. it starts rewarding providers, doctors and hospitals, for good-quality, affordable care. i was able to get a measure in the senate bill that would do that. >> number 764. then 869. >> this is a very quiet -- >> my name is david. i am an inventor of the gate harness system. it is a durable medical equipment device used for walking and standing. we have worked in getting people walking up for about 20 years. and getting a specific outcome

is a great way for cost containment. my question, as you are talking about medicare and quality and quality of care, and this is really very specifically focused in the the arena of walking, and i have seen people are not getting that level of care. i was wondering if you have heard anything regarding walking and standing and the ability to get that type of assistance. >> you are being weighed to all logical for government. heaven forbid that logic should break out. what you are talking about goes into the general basket of our trying to look, particularly walking can often be a preventive type of measure. certainly, the government has not done much of that.

part a of medicare spends thousands of dollars on the seniors medical bills. part b does not do anything near enough and prevention. walking, standing, particularly for older people, if they are sitting for a protracted periods of time, that is a prescription for health problems. let's see if the staff. we have jay, mary and lisa here. they will be available. we always tell them they are available for calls nights and weekends. take all their free time. what you are talking about is exactly the kind of focus we ought to bring to health care. we would like to follow-up with you. . .

i was trying to figure out how this was fair for nebraska because of the special deals and how those are a fair way of buying a vote, essentially. [applause] >> i am glad you raised that. let me unpac k that.

no current congress can bind future congress. with respect to is this just going to be in perpetuity, absolutely in that that's number one. and number two, there's no question that this is going to be changed. i have been talking with senators, this is going to be changed in one way or another. and now the question is how will it be changed and to kind of put this in focus, the nelson provision involves both medicaid, the program if low income people. if you look at my legislation, the healthy americans act, talk about change, i want to abolish the medicaid program and i want poor people to get private coverage like their member of congress. i think that -- the medicaid program is almost a kind of medical apartheid today where the doctor's reimbursement rates are so low, the doctors feel they can't take care of the

patient. i think we ought to say for the well-being of poor people and the well-being of taxpayers, we ought to go to a completely different approach. that's real change. number one, you can't bind future congresses. number two, this is going to be changed in the short-term and number three, if i have my way, we will look in the years ahead at a very different approach for making sure that -- that poor people have an opportunity to get dignified quality care and taxpayers are better protected. with respect to the -- to the question of how and -- an individual state is handled, the provision that is i sought & mentioned several. the free choice voucher will be very helpful to middle class folks and in oregon and across the country who are getting shellacked with high health care costs. i mentioned the medicare advantage area where i was able to get in a provision that makes sense for oregon as well as everywhere else and finally i was able to get included a

measure that we oregonians have long been interested in and that's a chance to set up our own program, in effect, get a federal waiver and tell the government that we could meet the requirements of this bill, the coverage requirements. let us have a waive sorry we could do our own thing. provisions i worked for -- the provisions i worked for are ones that make sense for oregon, that make sense for the country as whole. next is number 813 and then 910. >> my name is tom knowle. my question goes back, i think it was the second question of the day, which related to the

cost of the program, health care program specifically. when we look at the significantly under funded situation that social security and medicare are in, we have in way that we could see today how we're going to pay for those programs. how could we possibly pass a program as large as this health care package, which you said affects 26% of our economy. i don't see how we could do it. i think an incremental approach makes more sense. could you tell me how we're going to address medicare and social security on top of the program. >> having stated i was for a different approach, here's what the numbers are for this particular approach. the congressional budget office says that largely through the various tax changes and other changes, this bill will not add to the federal deficit. and that was not my finding. but before a riot breaks out, that's not my finding, that's

the finding of the congressional budget office. number one. and number two, on this cost issue, what we know is that the status quo is unsustainable. and that's what we know for a fact. we're in a global economy, everybody in corvallis is competing in tough global markets and yet we're spotting our foreign competition hundreds of billions a year because their health care costs are so much lower. and so i have already told you, one, i want to take a different approach, two i'm going to be focusing on bipartisan efforts to strengthen the bill. the first question was about legal reform. i made it clear that -- that i think the insurance system is prone. it is all about cherry picking. and taking just healthy people a sending sick people over to government programs more fragile than they are. i think legal reform is critically important as well. i am going to support that and

certainly not -- not everybody in my party is yet willing to do it, but i'm going to stay at it. and to me, and this is how i would characterize this legislation. folks, two words. a start. if you don't get started, if you don't start it, you're in the in a position to keep building. the gentleman raises another good point and that is, is it possible to take some sort of, i believe you used the word incremental approach? the challenge there is that health care is like an ecosystem. you fluff it up over here and it fluffs up over there. and even the approach hass some consider incremental have consequences for rippling all through the system. i'll give union example. some have said why don't we do insurance reform? i agree with you, ron, those pre-existing s are a terrible

thing. let's just do that. well, if that's all you do, you still face a challenge for example, about how people are going to afford it. you still have some affordability questions. so you have got 0, in my view set up additional steps for competition and choice. that's why the insurance exchanges kind of like a farmer's market are so relevant. so there is no doubt, sir, the point you made with respect to cost, and the point made in the back of the room are absolutely correct. and i made the judgment that -- that rather than in effect going off in a corner and complaining, because i didn't get my first choice, i would stay at it. i would characterize this bill as a start. i know a lot of people think it is almost an archaic idea that we could have bipartisan in this country. i don't buy it for a second. and i'm going to stay at it on this health issue until we get it. [applause]

>> number 9, 10 and next up will be 776. >> my name is betty johnson. [applause] >> hello, betty. >> i have known ron for 100 years. ron -- >> my shady past. >> yes. >> my question also has to do with cost. because i think that a single payer health care system is the most cost effective way to -- to insure that we have 100% coverage in this country -- [applause] and because we're already spending enough money to cover everybody and we're just not doing it very efficiently, i want to know if you support a

conclusion in the health reform legislation which would insure the states have a right and the waivers to go forward with the single payer health care system. >> betty, an important question. under the waiver amendment that i got included in the senate finance committee bill, a state that can show that it can meetñr the general requirements of the bill, a coverage requirement is essentially when we're talking about, can choose to go its own way. in fact, that could extend to a variety of approaches across the political spectrum. for example, one of my colleagues on the senate finance committee asked a question about -- about could a state go forward for example without having an individual mandate? the requirements that people purchase coverage -- we haven't gotten to that issue yet today. i expect that we will.

and that's another noncontroversial item in this -- this discussion. but what the council said is, betty, yes, under my waiver amendment if the state wants to go out there and try its own approach and in the have -- an individual mandate but could meet the requirements of the bill, it can go forward. there are no limits to what a state can do in terms of carving out its own path. >> number 776. >> 17876. >> close. good afternoon, senator. first, my name is larry mullens. we met in the past and i want to acknowledge the here role that you have played on health care reform in a very nonpartisan way. that's very much appreciated.

you did mention something earlier, though, and i want to know if you could expand upon and i want to know if it was addressed in the healthier americans act and i wonder if it is still of concern to the citizens. the med pack report came out & notice they focused that oregon has one of the lowest health costs in the nation whereas other states could be 25, to 50 to 100% more. is there a chance of getting parity between the states so at least you're paying for the same things for the same price in different states? >> larry is again raising the question of how -- how illogical the medical care reimbursement system is. it rewards volume rather than quality. i think in the legislation we're making a real start. and now, it goes forward without causing some of the incredible political brawls that you would have if you tried to

do it abruptly, because there are some states that are high cost states and they say, look, we're not inefficient. we don't pour on the volume. we have higher rent and higher charges. the evidence doesn't really show that. the evidence shows that -- you could take a particular procedure and -- and doctor in oregon feels that three tests or three services would be appropriate and the doctor somewhere else goes with seven because the reimbursement system will pay for seven. so i think we're making real progress. i'm going to insist on the amendment that i got in, be part of the final package so that especially for medicare advantage, folks, we have 40% of our seniors in medicare advantage in our state. highest in the country. that it gets in, not because this is somehow a special fix

for oregon but because i think changes that affect medicare reimbursement to reward quality rather than volume are critical to getting this program on track. and so i'm going to insist on that amendment a we are going to keep trying to build on it and i think we're making a little progress. it is not as fast as you and i would like having talked about it in the past, but it is concrete and a tangible process, so people no longer scratch their r-their heads and say, this is dumb even by beltway standards. they reward people for being inefficient. that's the way it worked for too long. we're going to process cute the cause of change until we get it fully implemented. >> number 817. that'll be followed by 840. >> i'm unemployed electronic

tech and i'm currently studying to be a medical assistant, i would be interested in nursing but it is too hard to get in the nursing school. i know they need nurses. i'm thinking a good chick stimulus idea would be to subsidize nurses to teach, kind of expand that base of students. >> very good point. [applause] i once spoke, since we're home and it is a nice sunday and we have a chance to have y'all educate me to know that -- i think this issue of jobs is far and away the top priority for 2010. our last unemployment numbers were 11.1%, folks. we love it when oregon is up at the top in terms of protecting beaches and treasures and parks. but being up the top of an unemployment rate or close to it is an hopper i want to see us put in the trash can.

the big priority for this year is going to be focusing on jobs. one reason i wanted to recognize norm and the good work that the forestry school is doing on campus is we do a lot of things well in this state but what we do best, is we grow things. we grow them and we ought to add value and ship them somewhere. i think our efforts on forestry now are going to -- to send a really strong message that we're going to get that sector back to being a significant economic force in the state. now on campus, there are other promising opportunities, for example this campus at oregon state has made a big push on nano technology, the science of small. i think that's a significant boost for us in the days ahead as well. it is something i championed in the united states senate. it has real implications for the area you want to get into

and that's health care, because if we could get these small you know, devices and they could cure -- cancer and others quickly and without more scarring and the like, it is going to make a big difference. in the short-term, transportation funding will be a big priority for me this year. we have been able to -- to win the issuance of build america bonds so municipalities in the valley and elsewhere have a new option if financing roads and bridges and transportation systems. that will be a shot in the arm for the area because we know you can't have big league economic growth with little league transportation systems. now in terms of the area you would like to see in the health bill, there are -- some additional programs that are going to help us get the folks that we're going to need to carry out this bill. and if you'll lead me -- heave me your e-mail and phone, we'll be glad to work with you specifically, to sort of walk you all the way through the system to try to get some help

or -- or a nursing education. and if i have my way, the other area that we will change, that is not directly in the health bill, is i would like to see more of the billions of dollars spent on job training being used for the kinds of jobs -- kind of job you want in nursing. right now, it seems like we're training a lot of people for industries that are not even going it exist in the united states. they're going to be outsourced and what we ought to do is train people for fields like nursing, where you got to do the work here in our country. and that's a little bit about the economic picture in the state. all issues with respect to jobs are sort of local and personal. if i could have your address and fen, what we would like to do if you wouldn't mind being sort of the showcase for this is just walk you through the system and try to make sure that -- that through one of these

programs that is going to be expanded in the legislation, we can get you into the nursing field and have some opportunities and health care. >> number 840 and next up will be 882. >> what we talked about earlier, about too big to fail, thmi big businesses and the bailouts and i agree with you 100% on that. i think that -- anytime you have an industry of any kind insurance making investments where just by the sheer size of them, they fail, our economy could really be damaged. i read where there was a proposal by senator sanders of vermont, a bill that -- that would break up the too big to fails.

i wondered if you had comments on that bill and that proposal. >> the question was about the standard bill. i'm not up on the specifics of the sanders bill but i think generally what he and others are trying to do is to make sure that in these next discussions, particularly with respect to financial you know, reform, that we're going to be -- focused on trying to blow the whistle on changing that kind of economic focus. and it was -- in my view, the principle reason for voting against the bank bailout bill. here we had the setting for the bank bailout bill is the financial institution worse involved in all kinds of -- exotic financial transactions. they made loans they clearly

should not have made. they took on risks that they should not have taken on. i guess they just figured that, somehow they would have enough political clout to get the federal government and the taxpayers to step in and bail them out. and the reason that i voted against that legislation is because i thought it established a dangerous principle. now we're going to have another financial reform opportunity, and a lot of these exotic financialñr instruments, derivatives and -- and collateralized debt obligations instruments and like, even alan greenspan told people he couldn't understand them. so, whether it is -- it is the sanders bill and i'll take a look at that or other approaches, i want us to draw a line in the sand now, and say,

we believe in markets. we believe in competition. and we believe in giving people incentives, everybody, a chance to get ahead but we don't buy the idea that if you're big and powerful in the united states. you get to privatize your gains but your losses will be socialized by the taxpayers of the united states. and my watch i'm going to fight that. [applause] i'll have another at some point to do it. i'm going to introduce major tax reform legislation to try to get rid of a lot of the -- the breaks that have gotten into -- interest the tax code. use that to hold down rates and keep progressive. my hope is we could make that bipartisan as well. we started the program with a -- e a little discussion about health. i wanted that to be bipartisan. i'm going to push hard for tax reform around the principles we're talking about today. and stay at it until we make that bipartisan as well. >> you remember 882, followed by 892. >> it likes like on health care

reform, we're not going to get the public option. it won't be an option, even though most americans support it. it appears as if the reason is that -- big businesses and health insurance companies are getting a pretty good return on their investment in lobbying and it looks like the same thing is going to happen with financial reform. and what are you doing to change the problem or -- what i perceive to be a problem with too much special interest controlling congress? it seems to be it is -- inconsistent with your concept of unfiltered pure democracy. >> i'm mating notes because you hit good issues. first, with respect to special interest controlling congress. folks, one of the reason why i made this pledge and nobody in the history of oregon government had ever done this

before, to have an open meeting in every county in oregon, every year that i serve in the senate is because i want to counter exactly what you're talking about. and i want to make sure that folks in our state can come to a town hall meeting in 2010 and ask me a question about an issue, whether it is health or financial reform, watch how i vote, watch how i vote during 2010 and then can hold me accountable through another town hall meeting or another discussion pretty soon. so that's why i do this, to make sure that the impression that folks have that -- the only people that count are the big special interests that at least on our watch, in our state, we're counting -- countering

that with these kind of open meetings. that's number one. number two, when these -- when these big interests come to see me, very often, i say, make an argument for your point of view that will impress people at a town hall meeting in my state. this is essentially the measure i'm using for a evaluating a variety of different issues, and -- and the different positions. with respect to -- to the question of taking them on, i already mentioned i like to have on the he will bill, mccarren ferguson change so the insurance industry would be subject to anti-trust scrutiny. there's another area that the -- that the gentleman's question goes to and that is has part of the final deliberation on health reform will involve something called establishing loss ratios for the insurance industry. and what this will mean is that if we could get it in, when an insurance company collects a dollar from you as a premium payment, they would have to pay a significant portion of that dollar back to people in terms

of services and benefits. now the insurance companies are clearly going to lobby against this. i have supported the toughest loss ratios in this discussion, so you could see -- you can see there's -- a kind of symmetry to all of this. you got to create more choice and more competition. i think we're doing that with our free choice vouchers is middle class folks can push back and fire their insurance company, mccarren ferguson is another step in the right direction. loss ratios are a third step in the right direction. i think that what you're talking about with respect to health insurance is to have trouble taking on special interests in another -- debate, whether it is financial reform or energy or another concern. so as far as i'm concerned, the kinds of consumer reform we're talking about is essential for a bill that -- that really puts us in a position to hold the insurance companies accountable

and hold premiums down. >> number 892 and number 755 should get ready. 892. >> commissioner is like an auctioneer, he has to give them away now. >> we'll go on to 755. you found them? >> 892 has been located. here we go. yes, sir. >> my name is jeff le moan and oddly enough i have a question about health care. >> i'm flabbergasted. i want to know if anybody is even going to ask a question today about yemen or afghanistan or something. >> i was going to ask a question about route bagegas but i didn't think it would have wide appeal. health care is near and dear to my heart.

i like to ask, if this legislation, this upcoming health care legislation is so important, if it is so landmark and something so desperately needed that and so stellar it trumps the discussions about jobs, and homeland security and so forth, if it is so important that the senate had to vote on it on christmas eve, why is congress being so secretive about the debates? why are these congressional debates not on c-span like everything else? [applause] i can remember during the reagan years when there were discussions about what people from delaware should be referred to, should they be called delawarites or delawarians, that's the kind of thing i've seen on c-span but these health care debates are not on c-span. what happened to the promises of open government? i know you're a fan of open government. we were told open government and transparent leadership.

these closed door discussions seem to fly in the face of that. thank you. >> a good question. first so folks know my preference, i wanted a full-fledged conference between the house and the senate, so that we would have exactly what you're talking about and -- i believe i would have had a good shot at getting on the conference committee and being able to make the case for exactly what you're talking about. so that was my preference. and i didn't get my preference and -- given the fact that i didn't, one judgment i made -- is that we would start the new year by really pouring it on in terms of the town meeting, so that people at least in our state would see that we're serious about transparency and accountability and openness. in the last six days i have had

12 town hall meetings like this. [applause] as i say, my first choice, sir, was to have a full conference. if you don't get yourñr first choice, the question is what do you do next? and so what i did, i will make sure i'm home and we're going to make sure we have town meetings and i'm going to get out to as many parts of the state as i possibly can. i think all of us and i tried to mention the small business amendment that i'm seeking and rewarding medicare programs if quality rather than value and holding insurance companies accountable. if we keep the heat on, we could prevail. that's the point of this meeting. i'm sure there are going to be other meetings around the country like this. let's make sure that we use the time between now and the end of the deliberations to weigh in with -- with strong a voice as we can. i have been talking to the obama

administration, on the small business amendment. i pointed out the national federation of independent businesses wants it. it is bipartisan and it holds the insurance companies accountable. progressives likes it because it offers choice and competition. i want it understood i will do everything i can to make sure oregonians have the facts and as much information as possible about what is being debated. >> number 88> thank you. i'm a federal employee like yourself. my name is john clark. what i'm kind of curious about is again health care. and -- we -- we have choice in the federal employees health benefits program. and you talk about having

competition. i did notice the majority of the -- of the -- of the, that feels funny, of the -- of the majority of the employees tend to choose one insurance company over almost every other one. the point of service program. how would you foster this competition you're talking about and number two, how it -- sounds like you were for the public option? i'm not. but i'm trying to understand a little bit better how -- how the public option was going to -- to inspire this competition and -- and you believe that markets and competition. how is it going to foster a better more free market and more competition with the government running the health care program. thank you. >> very good point. first, andçó i -- i play have -i play have missed it, sir, you were talking about how in the federal em moiee system

everybody ends up going to the same plan. i think you were concerned about point of service, one of the particular kinds of approaches where people can have additional choices and reimbursement system is a bit different. respectfully, i would say, i don't believe that is the case. i know that if members of congress sign up in washington d.c. for health coverage, they have access to more than 15 different choices. and there are basic competitive principles. in your own words if a member of congress or federal employee in washington d.c., who we say a printer at the bureau of engraving or member of congress doesn't like the way they have been treated by a insurance company in 2009, they in effect can fire their insurance company in the winter of 2010 and go get one of those other kinds of

choices. so that is the way the system works if you sign up in washington d.c. and if anybody has more questions about it, you could go back to the oregon live file and see the oregonian put my benefits on the front page of the oregonian recently. all the way down to points out that ava rose and william peter would be eligible for a variety of well baby benefits for twins and everybody else would as well. that's the way it works for members of congress. now, with respect to the public option, i came to feel that -- making sure that you had the widest array of choices, privatr choices and public choices was the key to holding insurance companies accountable. and now i don't believe that that constitutes a government

takeover and in fact, one of the concerns that -- that was expressed and left, i think people a little baffled is the congressional budget office estimated that with the -- with the senate bill, only about 3% of the public would constitutional my even take the public option. so you're in the going to have the insurance industry exactly quaking in his boots over something like that. so, i want chrises. and as many of them as possible and private sector and the public sector. i want them available on day one. i think we ought to make sure we're not setting up a health care ghetto where the only people that get choice are people who are sick and -- uninsured and aren't in a position to get physicals and check-ups because if you do, that's an insurance lobby's dream. what really is going to work for the public is the widest array

of choices on the private and public side. that's what i worked for and that's what i voted for in the senate as a member of the finance km mittity. >> number 822? followed by 796. >> our district attorney, and a good man. >> thank you, senator. thank you for joining our community to share this information with us. you have been traciing very important points. i would like to add one more to the plate. immigration reform. it seems that for some time we i partisan debates with meaningful comprehensive reform. and can you give us your insight in terms of when we should expect honest and comprehensive and meaningful reform to occur can clearly, we have been dealing with a system that is broken. >> another noncontroversial issue, immigration reform. how many folks came out to talk

about immigration reform? now i'm really surprised. only a handful. but -- i think it is an extremely important issue. let me give you what i think quoo -- could be a path to democrats and republicans coming together and fixing a system that in my view is prone. folks the immigration system is broken. it doesn't work for anybody. and it doesn't work for taxpayers. it doesn't work for farmers, it doesn't work for -- for anybody. and here are the principles, it seems to me, for good immigration reform. first you have got to strengthen what you're doing at the borders. and if you don't have tougher controls at the borders, and your borders are just porous, everything else is just uphill. that's number one. number two, you got to enforce the laws on the books.

we are a society of laws. some people might think that's a little quaint or i'm old-fashioned but the law needs to count for something. and if you don't have the rule of law, i guess, we could all just go out and run the red lights and take the consequences of everybody running into each other and going off to the hospital. so, you have g to enforce the laws on the books. and what that means is -- is if anem employer knowingly violates the law, knowingly violates the law, they should face penalties because that is the existing law, folks. it is the law on the books today. the third part of the immigration debate is far and away the hardest. and that is what do you do about the people who are here illegally today? people who do not have the right documentation. they're here ill heiglly. obviously, this is going to be a

huge challenge. but here are the elements that i think -- that i think could get democrats and republicans to finally start looking to move ahead. i believe if you set aside a period of time and folks who are here illegally came forwardville tearl. and paid a financial penalty. because they broken the haw. i told you the laws matter. so they come forward voluntarily and they pay a financial penalty because they broke the law. two, they show they have not broken any other laws, so other than coming to this country illegally, they went about their business and -- know benton county or anywhere ellings in compliance with the laws. third that they have shown that they mastered english, because that is absolute my key to -- to

contributing in the united states, being able to read your kids' pill bottles. i believe that those individuals, penalty, haven't prone additional laws and clearly have mastered english -- i believe those individuals should be given the opportunity to go to the end of the citizenship line and apply for be a citizen. now some people are going to say, come on, ron. that's amnesty. that's amnesty for people. seems to me if people come forward voluntarily, pay the fine, and show they have mastered english, show they haven't prone any other laws, we ought to make sure they comply with the verify program as it relates to implement, i don't think that is the kind of

approach that people would say is somehow a free ride and just forgetting about the fact that the law was broken. and here is the other consideration. for folks who think, well, 12 million peel, they broke the law, they ought to be deported, i'm not clear about how you would even set up a program to do such a thing. in your own words, are you going to have the government go to everybody's door, knock on the door and say, good morning, i'm here from the government. we have set up this program. if anybody here is ill liege legal -- illegal, you'll have to come with me. i don't think that's what the american people will want. we're going to have to find a way to move forward, tougher controls on the borders and enforcing the laws that on the books and then a -- e a rationale way to insure that those who are here illegally face a penalty and meet certain

tests and then i personally would give them the opportunity to go to the end the citizenship line. number 796. >> 892 wanted a refund i guess. >> do we have 796? >> you mentioned that you would like two reward states that have low cost-efficient medicare programs. would you also do the same for people who have low cost, efficient medicaid programs? such as -- such as ours. >> certainly we ought to do that if we stay with the current kind

of model. and i have tried to indicate -- i continue to believe that there is something out of whack when the poorest and the most vulnerable people in america, in the health care system, are essentially put aside and pulled to try to figure out how to get providers when the reimbursement rates are too low. every time their status in life changes, they have to go through daste set of criteria. i believe for the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society, i believe that they ought to be walking right by their member of congress in a doctor's office. and -- and you been to a number of my meetings and you have booven -- been a wonderful advocate if the disabled. so glad you're here again. the answer to your question is, you bet, if we stay with the current model we have.

but i continue to believe that -- for poor people and taxpayers, to get a better shake, the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society ought to get the same kind of health system that their elected officials do in the united states congress.ñi >> number 892?ñi >> there's one otherçó point as 892 is coming forward. >> i came forward. >> you'll go ahead and we'll add after you. >> i -- i almost didn't want to say something. i thought i would, since i had this wonderful chance. first of all, you do a great job and thank you very much for your hardñi work. [applause] >> thank you. >> the second thing, is congress is having such hard time deciding about insurance for everybody, and medical insurance, i suggest and -- this

is not really a question, or maybe i should make it a question, why doesn't congress strip themselves of their medical insurance and go out and try and get it. i had a son who died a couple of years ago, who had colon cancer. he had two insurance companies a and he had to fight them to see which one was willing to pay for his -- his chemotherapy and radiation and -- and he -- they both were under the same company. it was two different sections of the same company and he fought and fought. now that's crazy. do -- had to go out and get their own insurance, maybe they would understand what those of us in the public are talking about. ps [applause] >> ma'am, did your son have a pre-existing condition?

and he -- did he have a health problem and then he tried to go an people turned him down? >> no.ñi >> he was just having a problem with his exists insurance company. >> he worked for two companies locally and he had a -- was laid off by the one. we know who that was and he got a job with the other one. and -- and he had -- he took, what do you call it? cobra? >> right. >> he had an insurance company from the first one, and he, then when he worked for the second one, he got a second insurance company and then he came down with his -- his disease. and -- and so, he would -- would -- he would apply to one or orte and they would, they actually fought about which one was going to pay, even though they were >> cobra, that's the program for folks who are unemployed and -- sometimes we call it the only federal program named for a

poisonuous snake. [laughter] >> first of all, there's no question that the insurers, if you have a situation like that will fight over who is going to take care of them. in fact, sometimes insurers try to ad -- add clauses that will say, if you get coverage or had coverage from somebody else, we shouldn't have to pay. so this is part of what needs to be in a final bill is to say that insurers have to take all comers that people could go into these big groups where they have more bargaining power and more clout. there are administrative costs are lower because they're not just with a small group and on your question about members of congress, i make two points. one, i'm going to push as hard as i can in the final bill for the same rules that apply to the

country to amy to congress, if -- if it is not done. if it doesn't get intt law, i pledge to use -- to you this afternoon that i will join personally whatever system amies to the rest of the country, whether it is exchanges or anything else. [applause] >> you had anotherñi comment to make? >> no. >> number 875 followed by 40, please. 785? >> yes. >> senator. my name is ken. i represent a columbia power technologies. we're located here in corvallis. we're a startup wave energy company and our technology is highly fishant and competitive.

and staying developed here in oregon and it'll stay in oregon. i like to thank you for your support and physical year, 2009 and 2010. and of our technology. and that's -- that support combined with angel investment funding has given us four full-time buyers, eight hires ii the next year, and research at oregon stateñi university and hundreds of thousands in regional subcontract work and when fully engineered our system will provide in excess ofñi 1,0 full-time skilled hire jobs in oregon. my question is, how do you expectçó support from the feder government on renewable energy in the future? >> big round of applause for somebody bringing jobs to

oregon. first you probably saw the exhiting tkphounsment -- exciting announcement by theñr president of additional tax credits for renewable energy producers here in the state. and that essentially comes through the legislation that i and others have been advocating. in fact at the town hall meetings, seller world was there, the billing solar company that we helped to bring to oregon. they announced they would be adding 500 new jobs as a result of the announcement made 48 hours ago. now the area that you're talking about, wave energy, is one, folks, that i think has an enormous amount of potential. so we have been clad to -- glad to work with you all and others and a lot of folks on this possibility. and i also think that -- that with tax reform coming up, and i mentioned that i'm introducing

legislation. i want parity for renewable energy development, with fossil fulls and others. we have not had -- parity, and here's our choice, folks. if we don't get serious about renewable energy, the chinese are going to rush to this market. i mean the papers are just full of stories about how -- the chinese are going gang busters to try to tap green energy and the green economy. and whether it is -- bullet trains or solar or wind or any of these renewables, this market is up for grabs. and this is a chance to create good paying jobs, all across the and i mentioned, forestry, our forestry legislation because norm's good work. we're going to have a whole new market for biomass to take wood waste and get it to the mills, put people to work and have clean energy and a strong green future. all the way from eastern oregon with buy yes mass to solarñi wod

in the metro area, and there are opportunities for us to be part of what i hope will be the green energy capital of the world, the united states. it is a question of whether we'll have the tenacity and discipline to stick to it. our competitors, particularly chien, they are going to stay at it and we cannot sit on our hands and let them dominate the mark. and the valley and whether it is your company and wave or solar or buy yes mass or wind, when you go up the gorge, so long as i have the honor to represent you in the united states senate and sit on the energy committee, i'm going to do everything i can to open up doors for employers like you. [applause] >> number 843, followed by 793. >> your distinguished legislator. how about a round of applause

for sarah gelter. >> thank you so much, senator wyden for coming today and

the new american foundation and washington monthly magazine hosts this event. >> thank you all for attending. we really appreciate you all being here today. my name is paul glastris. i'm the editor-in-chief of the washington monthly and a senior fellow here at the new america foundation, so on behalf of the washington monthly and a new america thanks for coming. we are here today to discuss this special report just released in the current issue of the washington monthly called the "the agent orange boomerang" which you can read it washington monthly.com. am ghaffari start ridges monta thanked america come less thank the staff of the washington and the ford foundation for his support.

from 1962 to 1971 the u.s.